Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sport of athletics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the deletion sorting list for the sport of athletics (track and field). For other sports or athletics (physical culture), see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sport of athletics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sport of athletics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sport of athletics.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Sport of athletics[edit]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club[edit]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Runners Association[edit]

World Runners Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. The only source that is about WRA and in-depth is the BBC. Some of the sources make no mention of WRA and the others are brief mentions or based on what the organization/those affiliated say. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as per the previously cited lack of evidence demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the organisation appears to be using Wikipedia for advocacy as evidenced by the fact that the article was commissioned by them (see article talk page), clarifying edits have been reversed by a user with a registered COI based only on the claim that the organisation is “legitimate and registered”, and a link to the article is displayed prominently on their website’s home page. The line “Wikipedia is not… to be an adjunct web presence for an organization” on Wikipedia:Advocacy appears to be particularly relevant here. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, and Disicipline the editors who are COI-editing or removing tags inappropriately. The relevant policy here is not only WP:NCORP but also WP:NSPORT as a sports league/organization. Looking at this as neutrally as possible, the bar for coverage is met:
  • Jack Palfrey. "Is this the world's most exclusive travel club?". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
  • "Danish runner contesting Russ Cook's claim says he wants to get 'facts correct': Russ Cook's claim has been contested by the World Runners Association". The Independent. 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
  • "'Hardest Geezer' Russ Cook's Africa run contested by man who did it 14 years ago: Russ Cook, from Worthing, West Sussex, finished his gruelling 352-day run from South Africa to Tunisia on Sunday. But claims he is the first to run the length of Africa have been contested by the World Runners Association". Sky News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
The fact that the organization seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion is unfortunate, but also must not be a reason for its deletion; as with all articles we need to look at the sources neutrally. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst the Independent and Sky News (along with others published around April 8th) are based almost entirely what those affiliated with organization say so primary and is also churnalism. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091, The Independent and Sky News aren't churnalism outlets, they're both marked as "generally reliable" by CiteHighlighter and WP:RSP. They're also not the only sources, as you pointed out, there are many others from around that time period.
With great respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:Primary – of course, news outlets will respond to and report quotes and statements from organization officials with analysis. That is journalism and secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. A primary source would be, for example, citing the World Runners Association Charter document (if one exists) or similar.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great respect back atcha @Habst :) but reliability has nothing do with churnalism. Other than the BBC article, all they say about WRA other than they dispute Cook's claim is that the WRA is "a group made up of seven athletes who have successfully circumnavigated the world on foot" or similar. That's not in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091, thanks, I hear your concern so I tried to look for mentions before the April 8th event. I found many, see this web search:
I don't think that these are all churnalism, and as that's a subjective term it's difficult to prove one way or the other. Furthermore, I don't think that an article needs to specifically say "WRA is..." by name for portions of the article to contribute to notability; members or components of the group may be discussed as well. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Independent and Sky News articles the WRA in these examples is only really being mentioned in passing due to an association with a notable event which are the actual focus of the articles.
These all seem like examples of WP:INHERITORG
An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it
Even the BBC article is in fact largely covering the pursuits of Olsen and the World Running Club - an entity which is not actually equivalent to WRA and was created almost a year before the WRA was founded. The WRA is only discussed over two sentences in the BBC article. That article is evidence for the notability of the WRC, not the WRA:
A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries
Perhaps as a compromise the WRA (or maybe more justifiably the World Running Club) could be merged with Olsen’s Wikipedia page until further evidence can be found for notability? Jaa.eem (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem, a common theme in this discussion is that WRA is mentioned in a wide variety of sources, but there are concerns about depth. Could we not apply the combining principle, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? This is stated in WP:BASIC for people but surely the principle applies just as well in this situation. For an organization that is so widely covered in so many WP:RSP reliable sources, the more I research this topic the more I think we would be making a mistake to delete that may be biased by the behavior of COI editors. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NORG explicitly states that an organisation must have multiple sources providing significant coverage. In fact, it also explicitly states that “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.”
WP:BASIC plainly cannot be applied as suggested. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...as the nom, I am not stuck on using the NCORP sourcing criteria given the crossover of org/sports/club but certainly WP:BASIC does not apply. I think GNG makes enough sense which requires WP:SIGCOV by multiple sources. Either way, I think the three of us need to step back so others can opine. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it should be controversial to utilise WP:NORG.
Scanning a bit deeper into the guidelines there is also a section specifics for NGOs which describes the WRA by their own admission: Wikipedia:NGO
This also states that multiple significant sources are required. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is relevant here? It’s very possible that I’ve missed it but those guidelines do not appear to provide any specific guidance for organisations claiming to be a governing body. The “basic criteria” appears to be in relation to sports people rather than organisations.
Furthermore, the Independent and Sky News articles you have linked provide only trivial coverage of the WRA itself - they are instead focussed on Russ Cook and comments made by individuals who are members of the WRA regarding Russ Cook. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem, given that the lede of NSPORT specifically mentions sports organizations, I think it is worth considering the policy as a whole. Because there isn't any specific section for a governing body, I would try to apply the "spirit" of WP:SPORTBASIC, even though it is about people, in lieu of more specific criteria. SPORTBASIC prong 5 says that if there is at least one non-database source, which we can agree that the BBC article is, then "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I'm open to other ideas, but in my review of the material I am having a hard time being comfortable with a delete decision here in light of the breadth of coverage. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst WP:SPORTBASIC is specific to people. The section of NSPORT that covers organizations relevant to clubs, WP:NTEAM, states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.
Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa.
The BBC article describes WRA as a club, though they frame it as a travel club, so I think GNG is the relevant guideline. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this @Habst
My read of WP:SPORTBASIC is that it is intended to reduce the burden of evidence of notability for individual people which I think is justifiable - I would suggest that a sportsperson on the borderline of genuine notability (putting aside Wikipedia’s guidelines for a moment) is less likely to have comprehensive secondary sourcing available and thus reducing the burden of evidence makes sense. Conversely I would suggest that a genuinely notable “international governing body” would realistically have substantial coverage and thus reducing the burden of evidence purely by virtue of being related to sport cannot be justified.
Furthermore, as @S0091 says WP:NSPORT does provide guidance for clubs which I think is a much closer analogue to this example than an individual sports person. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem and @S0091, thanks for your thoughtful responses. The reason why I went to WP:NSPORT is because it's the most specific guideline I could find that includes the subject. If I were to describe WRA, I would say it's a "sports organization" and that phrase appears exactly in the lede of NSPORT but not any other guideline.
The WP:NTEAM section, on the other hand, doesn't seem to apply because I would struggle to call the WRA a team (it doesn't compete against other "teams", for example) nor is it a "club" in the European sense of the word intended there, a sports club.
I agree that "international governing body" is also a good descriptor, and I think that we should have high standards for notability when there's already a competing governing body so as not to place WP:UNDUE weight on one over the other. But in this case for the specific niche of the organization (running across continents), there doesn't seem to be any competing body setting standards, so I don't think we would be falling in to that trap. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that given the lack of specificity in WP:NSPORT it would be better to fall back to WP:NORG.
There is a substantial difference in the scope of a organisation which competes within a sport vs an “international governing body” of a sport. If a sports team should meet GNG surely a governing body shouldn’t be subject to more lax guidelines?
Also, with regards to the issue of undue weight I would suggest that a high standards of notability should be applied regardless. The status of “international governing body” effectively confers a level of ownership over a sport thus I think there should be a high level of confidence that such a status is widely agreed upon. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources discuss the subject at length beyond the previously cited BBC article? Jaa.eem (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the BBC article doesn't discuss the WRA at length. It mentions it once in the context of the World Runners Club, a related but different organisation. Cortador (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is insufficient sourcing, no in-depth coverage, and the article created as an ad. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect and merge some details into List of pedestrian circumnavigators as a governing authority for the running circumnavigations. --Habst (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with a redirect, though I think "governing authority" might be a stretch but that's a content issue. Pinging others: @Jaa.eem, @Cortador, @Dexxtrall, what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the World Runners Association aren't a governing authority, and would be reluctant about a merge if it winds up suggesting that they are. Redirect is fine though, and not entirely opposed to some content being merged if done appropriately ~~~ Dexxtrall (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not opposed to a redirect, though I agree about the content concerns. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Even with the paltry sources, there are just too many of them to ignore. [1] seems to be a RS, it talks about the one individual but always mentioning the WRA. There are about a dozen stories that discuss him and the WRA is mentioned, we should have enough for at least BASIC here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a brief paragraph in this German book [2], my German is rusty but a Google translate upload of the image talks about the club existing since 2014. I think we have just enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a single mention in a self-published book.
    There doesn’t appear to be a single source providing significant coverage of the subject - they’re all largely passing mentions in articles about other notable events/people.
    I think @Habst’s suggestion of a redirect is justified given the number of mentions but there’s not enough information from secondary sources to justify a full article. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b BASIC only applies to people, not entities or other topics. The source you linked to is not about WRA and is only a couple mentions. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Barely at GNG then with minimal coverage, but enough of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the German source, what else does is say about WRA? I only see a sentence. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of pedestrian circumnavigators: All the sources are about the "World Runners Association is contesting..." or "claiming..." something about Russ Cook. A BBC article writes about how the World Runners Club came to be, mentioning the World Runners Association in one paragraph. Is there anything specifically about the World Runners Association? I don't think so. A lack of significant coverage. Cooper (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foday Sillah[edit]

Foday Sillah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title and status he has earned are not encyclopedic. Redivy (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sport of athletics. Redivy (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is inappropriate to call one of the best athletes from an African nation as "not encyclopedic"; whether we can find the coverage to demonstrate notability, that will be another story. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Sierra Leone. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see coverage about a person with this name, a few hits on a school in The Gambia with this name. Happy to revisit if others can turn up sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nominator needs to familiarize themselves with WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Low effort nominations like this are going to be thrown out whether the subject is notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Sergecross73's comment, Low effort nominations like this are going to be thrown out whether the subject is notable or not. I was able to find a lot of verifiable information about this person that was not mentioned at all in the nominated article or nomination statement, including his exploits at the World U20 championships where he was the highest-placing male Sierra Leonean athlete ever, he was actually a two-time Olympian and not just at the 1992 Olympics, and he has a still-standing national record at 200 metres. Finding contemporary African news reports from this period is difficult, but I believe there is enough evidence here to know that further coverage exists. --Habst (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The information can often, as well as in this case, be found via What Links Here. It still needs non-database sources Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I don't think anyone, besides maybe some people who are already editors, looks up people without articles here and then finds and clicks "what links here" to find information about them. A standalone article is much more beneficial to readers, as that way we get both the bare information one would get from a table-link-mention and plenty of other interesting, additional details explained with context. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Geschichte, thanks for bringing this up. Not all of the information could be found via What Links Here, for example the fact that Sillah's World U20 performance was the best by any Sierra Leonean. Also, if the article were to be deleted, the standard practice is then that any links to the article would be un-linked per WP:REDLINK ("Red links should not be made to articles deleted because the topic was judged unencyclopedic or lacking notability"), meaning that Special:WhatLinksHere would be useless (text searches are not reliable because they could include people with the same name) and much of this structured data would essentially be lost to history. --Habst (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BeanieFan11 My point was about using What Links Here for nominators (and other editors). The reason why Lugnuts' articles were so horrible, was that they typically mention competing in a single Olympic event, where the athlete's career often had much more longevity. Geschichte (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ordinarily, I'd close this AFD as a procedural Keep due to the lack of a valid deletion rationale but we do have an opinion to Delete this article so I'm relisting to see if editors can come up with additional sourcing to demonstrate that this subject is "encyclopedic".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, as the article stands today it seems enough for the article to not be deleted. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination statement notwithstanding, not a single source with significant coverage has been located. Sillah wasn't that high-ranking as an athlete that we can jettison the demand for sources because we think WP:ITSINTERESTING. Geschichte (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, there is no deadline for Wikipedia. I believe the info we know about Sillah is conclusive that coverage must exist of him based on his accomplishments making him the best in his country, but it's a matter of having access to the African sources from the 90s that would have covered him. Scans of these may become available in 1, 10, or 20 years – that's why WP:NEXISTS is a policy, to allow for time to get the sources. But saying to drafty in this case is essentially saying to delete the article in 6 months, because most drafts are abandoned. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was responding to an older version of the reply that was a draftify vote. It was edited to Comment after I started writing my reply. --Habst (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Habst, I think there is a good reason why the rule about coverage was added. The days when articles could be built solely on databases and primary sources are over, we have to face that. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, thank you, which rule are you referring to? I am open to deleting this and any other page based on a rule, but I just can't see what is being violated. I've edited Wikipedia both before and after WP:NSPORTS2022, and it does not invalidate WP:NEXIST. Respectfully, --Habst (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NEXIST = grasping at straws. You personally think there are lots of significant coverage about this and that person, but that doesn't make it true and how likely it is varies a lot. For a person like Nikolay Antonov, it was overwhelmingly likely, but here - with the highlights being an U20 performance and a slow indoor record - it is nowhere near as likely. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, thanks for your perspective because I think the challenge is important. NEXIST isn't grasping at straws; the idea that we can know that coverage exists based on depth of accomplishments is the entire basis of subject-specific notability guidelines existing. Yes, it was used successfully on Nikolay Atanasov, but it has also been used successfully in other cases such as Abdou Manzo, understanding that Sillah's 200m record (1069 pts) is actually better than Manzo's record (924 pts).
    Also, I think that the subject is being sold short on likeliness of coverage. Sillah was, at a time, the best sprinter in Sierra Leone, a country of 8 million people. In order to be selected for all these international teams, he had to have won some sort of national championship or proven himself on the national level. The likelihood that there is no contemporary coverage of this person existing in the world is, in my opinion, impossible. --Habst (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beni Ebeid Stadium[edit]

Beni Ebeid Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing much which could be included however the sources may not be in English. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No located sources.
🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Beni Ebeid, the town it's in. The stadium isn't owned by the football club, they just operate there. The football club Beni Ebeid SC also needs to be merged into the town article. As it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as above; not even mentioned at the town article. GiantSnowman 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I sent Beni Ebeid SC to AfD, so now it's an inappropriate target! And it is mentioned in the town article now! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it needs fixing rather than deletion! Similar to what I've done to Beni Ebeid SC, I'll update this article one with new content in the nearest possible time. Ben5218 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ben5218 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks for finding these Ben5218 but a Facebook post and two pieces of coverage saying the name of the stadium is changing don’t make it notable. I still a merge and redirect to either the club or the town is best. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. GiantSnowman 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That Facebook post contains a video discussing the stadium's and club's history, though, and only one reference covers the name change, not two. Since my last comment here, another four references were added (I can find and add more easily, if needed), and I also added more content. This topic definitely passes WP:GNG now, in my opinion. Ben5218 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per the sources currently in the article. Decent enough coverage about an Egyptian topic. Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources are one line mentions or unreliable. And I think I've been cyber attacked by one of the sources I clicked on.Tamsier (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport of athletics proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Sport_of_athletics&oldid=1220542592"